Global Warming is NOT caused by CO2!

[Son_Of_The_Republic]

No Gore didn't lie, he told the truth as he saw it

How Orwelian of you. Gore's lies are legion.The man is a sociopath.

[Theowolfe]

A liar is a liar. No credibility can be attributed to the CRU, Mann, Gore and many others.

"You can watch a thief, you can't watch a liar"

[SAT]

But you can't fool all of the people all of the time.

And you are the proof you can fool some of the people all of the time, I suspect if your house was swallowed up by a glacier you would still be singing from the AGW hymn book.

[Wakeupcall]

And you are the proof you can fool some of the people all of the time, I suspect if your house was swallowed up by a glacier you would still be singing from the AGW hymn book.

Indeed, blind.

[Son_Of_The_Republic]

The Times has liberally papered London underground carriages with a fascinating new ad campaign. One poster shows a ship navigating some treacherous icy waters, with the accompanying copy reading:

Climate change has allowed the Northeast Passage to be used as a commercial shipping route for the first time.

Impressive – if only it were true.

London Times forced to recant ads touting NE passage Watts Up With That?

[Húrin]

That is a quite condecending spin to put on what I said, I stated a fact waste is a concept that we can all agree on, unlike unproven scientific hypothesis.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. You seem to assume that the problem for most deniers is the AGW theory. As far as I can tell, the problem for most of them is actually the notion that change must occur. Whatever reason you give for the change will be rejected. That's why some of them refer to peak oil as the "warming alarmists' backup plan".

That was because the energy source was cheap and seemingly limitless, neither are true now

Yes, but remember that we are trying to explain to people that we need to stop burning fossil fuels, not merely burn them more efficiently.

They are very much fewer than either side of the CO2 debate.

I would dispute this but I do think that AGW activists make more noise. The point is however that the need to cut emissions is not an ideological conviction, any more than the need for prudent management of the decline of cheap oil.

Carbon footprints of any activity are easily computed if one so wishes and of course a fuel will be used if available, at in this case increasing economic cost.

What I mean is that the idea that one can reduce or increase the size of one's carbon footprint is false; it is negated by the fact that someone, somewhere, will burn that fuel. It is likely to be someone who doesn't care about how big their footprint is.

Only if you have a coal mine right beside your power station and you own both.

Shipping is cheap. Power stations in Britain now burn coal from the likes of Colombia. As I said, many coal burning power stations are planned in Germany, the USA and China. This cannot be explained entirely due to the political power of the coal lobby, can it?

[Húrin]

Al Gore / AIT Index, Vol. 20: Globally averaged temperatures have gone down .158°F/.088°C since An Inconvenient Truth was released | GORE LIED

In many temperature graphs including those you have posted, the line goes up and down, while showing an overall warming trend. It is likely that we're on one of those downward lines. AGW does not predict continuously rising temperatures. Three or four years is not sufficient time to conclude that "Gore lied" about AGW.*

London Times forced to recant ads touting NE passage Watts Up With That?

The “retraction” is simply a rewording to say that the global warming has made the NE passage MORE accessible. Notice the addition of that one little word. They have not retracted the basic "AGW alarmism".

And you are the proof you can fool some of the people all of the time, I suspect if your house was swallowed up by a glacier you would still be singing from the AGW hymn book.

Indeed, blind.

Well tell me then, how are you lads so certain that I'm deluded about AGW?

[fiannafailure]

[quote=Húrin;2384454]

I wouldn't be so sure about that. You seem to assume that the problem for most deniers is the AGW theory. As far as I can tell, the problem for most of them is actually the notion that change must occur. Whatever reason you give for the change will be rejected. That's why some of them refer to peak oil as the "warming alarmists' backup plan".

No Hurin, my belief is that by telling people that change must happen without outlining that this change can also allow people to enjoy a good standard of living, simply invites pushback.

Yes, but remember that we are trying to explain to people that we need to stop burning fossil fuels, not merely burn them more efficiently.

Here again you must outline a practical alternative.

I would dispute this but I do think that AGW activists make more noise. The point is however that the need to cut emissions is not an ideological conviction, any more than the need for prudent management of the decline of cheap oil.

Again accurate information is more valuable than noise, perhaps for example, speaking about the practical methods of harvesting oil from shale could be more useful, two methods in particular spring to mind, one involves setting fire to one end of the franchise in order to melt the bitumen in front of the fire, so that it can be pumped as a liquid. Another method involves building a nuclear power station on site to either melt the oil in the shale with steam or pump electricity into the ground to achieve the same purpose.
All of the above methods sound expensive and they are, the resulting oil products will be a lot more expensive than at present, so it makes practical sense to prepare for a world of expensive oil as the alternative's will be a lot cheaper.

What I mean is that the idea that one can reduce or increase the size of one's carbon footprint is false; it is negated by the fact that someone, somewhere, will burn that fuel. It is likely to be someone who doesn't care about how big their footprint is.

Individual people can only be responsible for themselves and individual choices very quickly result in large changes.

Shipping is cheap. Power stations in Britain now burn coal from the likes of Colombia. As I said, many coal burning power stations are planned in Germany, the USA and China. This cannot be explained entirely due to the political power of the coal lobby, can it?

From an engineering perspective, coal cannot be considered simply as coal, there are many different types and grades of coal and power stations are designed to use one particular type. It will be interesting to see how many of these planned stations are actually built, many have already been shelved or postponed. Shipping is only cheap in a recession.

[Tombo]

You seem to assume that the problem for most deniers is the AGW theory. As far as I can tell, the problem for most of them is actually the notion that change must occur. Whatever reason you give for the change will be rejected. That's why some of them refer to peak oil as the "warming alarmists' backup plan

The problem with alarmists is that they can't handle change. The climate changes, natuarlly always has. Society changes and economies change, always have - natural and evolutionary. We adapt and change as needs require.

Your hysterics reveal some sort of child like terror at the prospect of living in the real world of natural change and then concoct some bizarre requirement to plan everything according to some personal notions of good and bad, or right and wrong.

Frankly it is puerile in the extreme.

[Húrin]

No Hurin, my belief is that by telling people that change must happen without outlining that this change can also allow people to enjoy a good standard of living, simply invites pushback.

Whereas claiming that our consumer economy can be made "sustainable" is dishonest. It may be that in the future we will learn how to harness more energy than even fossil fuels gave us, without affecting the climate. But I don't see that happening any time soon. But emissions must be cut some time soon. We have to prepare for less energy use. Whether that means people's lives will be worse is a cultural matter.

Here again you must outline a practical alternative.

Alternatives exist and I did not see why I need to write an essay on what they are in my post. George Monbiot wrote a good book about the subject called Heat.

Again accurate information is more valuable than noise

By noise I did not mean the opposite of accurate information.

perhaps for example, speaking about the practical methods of harvesting oil from shale could be more useful, two methods in particular spring to mind, one involves setting fire to one end of the franchise in order to melt the bitumen in front of the fire, so that it can be pumped as a liquid. Another method involves building a nuclear power station on site to either melt the oil in the shale with steam or pump electricity into the ground to achieve the same purpose.

How does this prove that AGW activists are ideologues?

All of the above methods sound expensive and they are, the resulting oil products will be a lot more expensive than at present, so it makes practical sense to prepare for a world of expensive oil as the alternative's will be a lot cheaper.

Yet if you say this to those who deny the need for a response to AGW they will probably deny what you are saying too.

Individual people can only be responsible for themselves and individual choices very quickly result in large changes.

Advocating individual action as a solution to a global economic problem is a dead end. Stupid environmentalists have been trying it for years. Very few people make big changes on their own. It is nearly impossible to live in a sustainable way in an unsustainable economy. Even if ;arge numbers of people spontaneously cut their energy use by 50% the result would be an economic catastrophe so severe that even our political system would collapse.

From an engineering perspective, coal cannot be considered simply as coal, there are many different types and grades of coal and power stations are designed to use one particular type. It will be interesting to see how many of these planned stations are actually built, many have already been shelved or postponed. Shipping is only cheap in a recession.

You're right many have been shelved. Shipping on the other hand is not only cheap in a recession. Cheap shipping built the global economy for the last three decades.